It is self-explanatory. As I say in it, I have not received communication
about the meeting or agenda, but the fax that Pete Bramson received said that
the only item was the approval of a new accounting system. I have heard it
is approximately $80K.

This morning I received a communication from Ms. Spearman which said that I
could expect to receive information about a "special meeting" of the Board
has been scheduled for this Friday, May 4, at 11am (Pacific Time).

This notification is said to have been communicated to Board Members via fax
several days ago. I have not received any such fax. To what number was this
communication sent? I would appreciate a copy of the fax transmittal rep
ort, showing that this notification was indeed sent without transmittal
errors be sent to my attention at my usual mailing address which is:

3790 El Camino Real

PMB #264

Palo Alto, CA 94306

I am disappointed to have learned of this meeting via an email from Pete
Bramson in which he asks several questions, including why Rob Robinson's name
was not in the distribution list of the fax. I subsequently talked to Pete
to find out what fax he was refering to, and I was told that it was about a
meeting the agenda for which included only one item, which was the approval
of expenditures for a new accounting system.

I will be available for the conference call. However, I have the following
objections:

1) It is not appropriate to have the board meet in conference call form at
this time. An open meeting of the Board was suspended on March 4, under a
motion requiring resuming the open meeting before the end of March. I and
others have repeatedly communicated with you and the rest of the Board asking
that this meeting be resumed. We have also specifically requested (as was
the intention of the motion to suspend) that all Board Members be consulted
as to appropriate times. This has not occurred.

2) The agenda and pending items from the March 4 meeting are still open.

3) There is insufficient notice of this meeting. Leslie Cagan is out of
town. She has specifically communicated to you her desire to reconvene the
March 4 meeting and has informed you of her unavailability this week.

4) We have received no financial statements at all since the September 2000
meeting. It would be inappropriate to make any expenditures in absence of
this information.

5) We have received no information on the proposed accounting system. Even
if that information arrives prior to the meeting in the packet mentioned in
Ms. Spearman's email from this morning, this would not be sufficient time to
study the materials and make a responsible decision.

6) We have received no information about the status of the search for a new
Controller. A major decision, such as large expenditures on a completely new
financial system, should include the input of the staff member that would be
most responsible for using the system. The discussion that is on the agenda
for the proposed meeting should wait
until we have a Controller on board and have the advantage of his/her
expertise.

7) You have not replied to the memo that I hand-delivered to the Board in
March in which I asked about the current composition of the Board
Specifically, I asked for a written statement laying out your understanding
of your tenure on the Board (the memo indicated that your 3-year elected term
ended in March 1999) and of Mr. Ford's tenure (listed as re-elected in June
2000, but lacking evidence as to such re-election).

8) Also there is a motion pending from the March 4, 2001 suspended meeting
to re-elect Pete Bramson, who has been re-elected by the KPFA Local Advisory
Board. There are two other individuals whose terms expired in March 2001:
Michael Palmer and Andrea Cisco. These questions must be answered before the
board takes further actions.

Therefore we should treat the scheduled call tomorrow as a phone
conversation to discuss how we can reconvene the March 4 meeting
and how the questions above are to be resolved.